Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Monday October 17 2016, @09:28AM   Printer-friendly
from the where's-the-good-news? dept.

The technology revolution has delivered Google searches, Facebook friends, iPhone apps, Twitter rants and shopping for almost anything on Amazon, all in the past decade and a half.

What it hasn't delivered are many jobs. Google's Alphabet Inc. and Facebook Inc. had at the end of last year a total of 74,505 employees, about one-third fewer than Microsoft Corp. even though their combined stock-market value is twice as big. Photo-sharing service Instagram had 13 employees when it was acquired for $1 billion by Facebook in 2012.

Hiring in the computer and chip sectors dove after companies shifted hardware production outside the U.S., and the newest tech giants needed relatively few workers. The number of technology startups fizzled. Growth in productivity and wages slowed, and income inequality rose as machines replaced routine, low- and middle-income, human-powered work.

This outcome is a far cry from what many political leaders, tech entrepreneurs and economists predicted about a generation ago. In 2000, President Bill Clinton said in his last State of the Union address: "America will lead the world toward shared peace and prosperity and the far frontiers of science and technology." His economic team trumpeted "the ferment of rapid technological change" as one of the U.S. economy's "principal engines" of growth.

The gap between what the tech boom promised and then delivered is another source of the rumbling national discontent that powered the rise this year of political outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

[...]

Eventually there'll be only decent jobs for maybe 20% of the population:  What economic system is needed for that??


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 17 2016, @04:18PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 17 2016, @04:18PM (#415238) Journal

    I think the GP's argument was that there was a bank controlled State, Greece (and quite possibly Europe), and it was not good for the people living in Greece.

    I find it interesting how banks' control seems to be the ability to pay protection money (for less regulation including the ability to launder money), to bend over backwards when government wants more information about its citizens and their banking habits, and of course to be protected when another state tries to default on debt obligations. That's not much in the way of control and I certainly wouldn't categorize a society as "bank-controled" on that basis.